JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - Defendants who are father and son have filed this second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for ejectment of the Defendants on the ground that the tenancy has terminated. The disputed land appertains to plot No. 2399 which is described as Gharbari with some mango and tamarind trees on it. According to the Plaintiffs' version, this plot is within Khata No. 125 and is an occupancy holding with an area 3.585, and originally belonged to Defendant No. 1. But this holding was sold in execution of a decree and was purchased by the Plaintiffs on 7th April 1946. Possession was taken by the Plaintiffs' through Court on 30th. December 1936. This disputed plot was in possession of the Plaintiffs from 1936 till 1942 when the Defendants were introduced as tenants to the four rooms on the plot. The Plaintiffs had served a notice to quit under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and have brought the suit. 2. The main defence is that the Defendants are entitled to protection u/s 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act as they ordinarily reside in the houses in question standing on plot No. 2399 and that they are tenants under the Orissa Tenancy Act. A further defence was taken that the notice was not valid in law. 3. The trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit holding that the tenancy was governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act and the Defendants were entitled to protection u/s 236, O.T. Act. The lower appellate Court, however, has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court finding that it is a case of tenancy governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. There being no written lease between the parties, the tenancy will be deemed to be one of monthly tenancy as it is admittedly for residential purposes. On finding that the notice to quit is valid, he has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. 4. Mr. Mitra, appearing on behalf of the Defendant-Appellants, mainly contends that the Defendants, are entitled to protection under' Section 236, O.T. Act as amended in 1946. Section 236 runs as follows 236. On finding that the notice to quit is valid, he has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. 4. Mr. Mitra, appearing on behalf of the Defendant-Appellants, mainly contends that the Defendants, are entitled to protection under' Section 236, O.T. Act as amended in 1946. Section 236 runs as follows 236. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the incidents of tenancy of any tenant, including the holder of a service tenure, in respect of the homestead in which such tenant ordinarily resides, shall be regulated by the provisions, of this Act applicable to land held by an occupancy raiyat. * * * 5. A few facts will be necessary in order to determine whether the Defendants are entitled to the protection u/s 236. The admitted, position is that this plot No. 2399 is one of the many plots appertaining to Khata No. 125 which in the last settlement was recorded as Sthitiban holding. Manifestly therefore the holding is an occupancy holding under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. As is manifest from Ext. 1, the sale certificate, this plot No. 2399 is described as Gharabari and in that Khata there are several plots of Chas land growing Sarada paddy. But the further fact that is admitted by the Plaintiffs is that in 1942 the Defendants were introduced to the houses in question as tenants under them. It has been found by both the Courts below that in fact the Defendants ordinarily reside in the houses standing on plot No. 2399. In view of the position that the original holding being an agricultural holding was being governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act, it can never be suggested for a moment that after the sale and delivery of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs the holding is to be a non-agricultural holding. On the contrary, when the manifest position was that the holding was still continuing as an agricultural holding and when, as admitted by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants were accepted as tenants under them in the year 1942, the irresistible conclusion is that the Defendants must be taken to be tenants under the Plaintiffs under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Indeed apart from the provisions of Section 236, when the Plaintiffs are occupancy raiyats in respect of the holding by virtue of their purchase, the Defendants being tenants under the Plaintiffs will have the rights of under-raiyats but nevertheless they are tenants under the Orissa Tenancy Act. Now on these facts that they are tenants, under the Orissa Tenancy Act and that they do ordinarily reside in the disputed houses, they are entitled to the protection u/s 236 as they have acquired occupancy rights therein. 6. Mr. Das, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, strongly contends that when the holding was let out to the Defendants only for residential purposes, the case is to be governed by provisions of Transfer of Property Act and not of the Orissa Tenancy Act. As I have already indicated, the entire holding being one under the Orissa Tenancy Act and being governed by the provisions thereof, when the Plaintiffs let out a portion of it in favour of the Defendants the portion will still be governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act as the entire holding was used for agricultural purposes-Vide Dina Bhoi v. Jagannath Paljoshi. There is a further aspect of the case which will strengthen this finding of mine that the case is governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. It is manifest from Ext. B series that the Defendants are settled raiyats of the village. This also has been found by the trial Court and the finding has not been vacated by the lower appellate Court. The Defendants therefore are agriculturists of the village and if they take any other land for their residential purposes, the tenancy of their residential plot will be governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. In either view of the case, therefore, the position is clear to me that the Defendants are tenants under the Orissa Tenancy Act and as such are entitled to protection u/s 236 as they ordinarily reside in the homestead in questions. 7. The appeal therefore is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the decree of the trial Court is restored. The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed